Post by toddpolt on Nov 21, 2009 0:41:36 GMT -5
Every few weeks, we get a new Internet rumor of how Steve Jobs' Apple Inc. and the Beatles' Apple Records had finally buried the hatchett on their years-long, lawsuit aplenty feud which have kept the Beatles catalogue from iTunes. Then nothing happens.
I use iTunes (I know, I suck), so imagine having a vast library of music and in rock you have the legends all here in Elvis, Dylan, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the usual suspects. Except Liverpool.*
Of course most of you would be saying: SO WHAT? Todd, go buy the darn CDs and just upload them like everyone else? Or you know, from under the "table." *cough*
Which is true. I got around and bought the recently released remastered editions of the White Album and Sgt. Pepper. Not because they're necessarily my favorite works of the group (though wonderful), but its because as music nerds know: The group didn't release any singles from those albums. Every other album of theirs yielded singles.
A short (but boring) story, so you can skip this parapraph. My parents had their catalogue on old LP, so I knew their music initially from the record player. Not tape or CD. At middle school for Christmas, I got 1. But otherwise, I was happy with the needle. Then it broke in the last year, and it couldn't be replaced.
So the clutch of my problem: I hate buying music I already own. Its a silly pet peeve, yet I just grind my molars at the idea of buying something I already own. Remember that recent thread I made about that subject? So that's my goofy problem right there and why I'm annoyed at this feud. 1 has all the band's #1s (not true but whatever) which are spread across effectively their entire run. Except for White Album and Sgt. Pepper.
Allegedly the main reasons for the Beatles balking is that iTunes songs piecemeal cost from 99 cents to $1.29, mostly for the massively popular hit songs. They want more. Second, they hate people buying tunes individually. They want people to buy the albums in bulk.
What this whole silly feud has been has been a bitter brawl over the # cents of a dollar. You had Costco and Coke just divorce because of what amounted to 14 cents on a buck. Alot of money to be made, and nobody wants to be "screwed."
For one thing, you can't blame Steve Jobs here. If he gave in, then every other act with iTunes deals will demand contract renegotiations to equal or come close to the Beatles' cuts. Nor the Beatles. They're the most commercially successful music group act in history, global multi-generational brand names along with Elvis (and perhaps Michael Jackson?). They know it, so why cower from the money they "deserve"?
Yet I think you know Beatles, as great as you are (and you are), not every song of yours was good. Neither was Elvis, Dylan, Stones, and everyone else. So why you think you all are better than those fellow contemporary legends? Yeah I know Elvis once called you a bunch of commies, but so what? No Elvis, No Beatles. John said it as much.
In these years where Beatles' estate didn't do digital downloads at all, they really shot themselves on the foot with the money they could have made in the meantime. Even Dinah Harrison (who spearheaded Beatles Rock Band) said it as much, and he's right. Sure they're doing downloads with XBox, but I don't own a XBox. Or Wii or PS3 for that matter.
What baffles me is, in spite of this epic fight, each of the Beatles have their solo catalogues available on iTunes. Yes you can buy "Imagine" or All Things Must Pass or "Live and Let Die" and heck even Ringo's crap. But not the Beatles. Not (most of) their best recording work. I mean this just blows my mind.
If you made it this far, thanks for wallowing through this long and winding road of a rant. Surely it'll be resolved eventually. Beatles or Jobs backs down, or I just say screw it, swallow my resentment, and buy the albums. That last one is what will probably happen. And I'll be a whore.
*=AC/DC aint there either. What the hell is that about?
I use iTunes (I know, I suck), so imagine having a vast library of music and in rock you have the legends all here in Elvis, Dylan, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the usual suspects. Except Liverpool.*
Of course most of you would be saying: SO WHAT? Todd, go buy the darn CDs and just upload them like everyone else? Or you know, from under the "table." *cough*
Which is true. I got around and bought the recently released remastered editions of the White Album and Sgt. Pepper. Not because they're necessarily my favorite works of the group (though wonderful), but its because as music nerds know: The group didn't release any singles from those albums. Every other album of theirs yielded singles.
A short (but boring) story, so you can skip this parapraph. My parents had their catalogue on old LP, so I knew their music initially from the record player. Not tape or CD. At middle school for Christmas, I got 1. But otherwise, I was happy with the needle. Then it broke in the last year, and it couldn't be replaced.
So the clutch of my problem: I hate buying music I already own. Its a silly pet peeve, yet I just grind my molars at the idea of buying something I already own. Remember that recent thread I made about that subject? So that's my goofy problem right there and why I'm annoyed at this feud. 1 has all the band's #1s (not true but whatever) which are spread across effectively their entire run. Except for White Album and Sgt. Pepper.
Allegedly the main reasons for the Beatles balking is that iTunes songs piecemeal cost from 99 cents to $1.29, mostly for the massively popular hit songs. They want more. Second, they hate people buying tunes individually. They want people to buy the albums in bulk.
What this whole silly feud has been has been a bitter brawl over the # cents of a dollar. You had Costco and Coke just divorce because of what amounted to 14 cents on a buck. Alot of money to be made, and nobody wants to be "screwed."
For one thing, you can't blame Steve Jobs here. If he gave in, then every other act with iTunes deals will demand contract renegotiations to equal or come close to the Beatles' cuts. Nor the Beatles. They're the most commercially successful music group act in history, global multi-generational brand names along with Elvis (and perhaps Michael Jackson?). They know it, so why cower from the money they "deserve"?
Yet I think you know Beatles, as great as you are (and you are), not every song of yours was good. Neither was Elvis, Dylan, Stones, and everyone else. So why you think you all are better than those fellow contemporary legends? Yeah I know Elvis once called you a bunch of commies, but so what? No Elvis, No Beatles. John said it as much.
In these years where Beatles' estate didn't do digital downloads at all, they really shot themselves on the foot with the money they could have made in the meantime. Even Dinah Harrison (who spearheaded Beatles Rock Band) said it as much, and he's right. Sure they're doing downloads with XBox, but I don't own a XBox. Or Wii or PS3 for that matter.
What baffles me is, in spite of this epic fight, each of the Beatles have their solo catalogues available on iTunes. Yes you can buy "Imagine" or All Things Must Pass or "Live and Let Die" and heck even Ringo's crap. But not the Beatles. Not (most of) their best recording work. I mean this just blows my mind.
If you made it this far, thanks for wallowing through this long and winding road of a rant. Surely it'll be resolved eventually. Beatles or Jobs backs down, or I just say screw it, swallow my resentment, and buy the albums. That last one is what will probably happen. And I'll be a whore.
*=AC/DC aint there either. What the hell is that about?
